Packages of the type adapted for use with plants or flowers and for use primarily in transportation of potted flowers or plants are illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 2,150,435 issued to Mulford et al. on Mar. 14, 1939; U.S. Pat. No. 2,736,138 issued to Buttery on Feb. 28, 1956; U.S. Pat. No. 2,767,831 issued to Brecht on Oct. 23, 1956; and U.S. Pat. No. 3,966,043 issued to Devroe on Jun. 29, 1976.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,754,642, issued to Stidolph on Aug. 28, 1973, discloses a waterproof container for cut flowers, or other product, which container is adapted to allow display of the flowers for sale or inspection after they arrive at their destination. One disadvantage of this design is that the flowers require immediate attention after the container reaches its destination-water must be poured into the container before the flowers are displayed. Further, there is no suggestion that the flowers will receive any nutrient during transport--it is only suggested that refrigerated means of transportation be utilized. This, of course, adds to the expense of transportation. Another disadvantage of the Stidolph design is that the contents of the package are not visible until removed. Further, the package is best suited for displaying relatively large quantities of plants or flowers in a market-type environment. The package would not be suited for supporting a single flower, or for being placed on a workplace desk or other display surface.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,736,427, issued to Trombetta on Feb. 28, 1956, and U.S. Pat. No. 2,752,035, issued to Shinoda on Jun. 26, 1956, relate to packages for flowers. Neither of these designs readily allow nutrient to be provided to the flowers during shipping or display.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,722,310, issued to Smith on Nov. 1, 1955, and U.S. Pat. No. 3,656,322, issued to Cerf on Feb. 23, 1971 relate to containers in general. There is no indication or suggestion in either of these references that these designs are suited or adapted to be used with flowers such that the flowers are supplied with nutrient.